I’ve made only a few few political posts, and most of those that touched on the upcoming elections have either been tongue-in-cheek or nonpartisan. But (to quote Tom Lehrer) I will digress, momentarily, from the mainstream of this evening’s symposium.

I can’t vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. If you don’t care why this is, then just go to the next post, because it won’t be about politics. If you do, I’m a bit puzzled, because I don’t think I’m going to sway anyone’s vote, nor are you going to sway mine. I’m venting. This is purely the lifting of the pressure-relief valve.

It’s not that I’m all that enamored of Obama; I can’t tell where the true policy ends and the pandering begins (for either candidate), and that bothers me. But I’m seeing out-and-out lies in recent political ads and speeches, and the worst of it seems to be coming from McCain. (Though this may be a function of my location with targeted ads). Is this the same man who decried such behavior in the last election?

I recall conversations I had when the primaries were starting up that McCain was somebody I could have voted for. But I was remembering the McCain of 2000, and this is not the same candidate. He’s not a maverick anymore. It occurs to me now that the more moderate candidate of 2000 might have been because Bush already had the far right locked up, and there was no ground to be gained by moving in that direction. Without that dynamic in play this time around, I see a candidate who has changed his stance on several issues, moving to the right, and gone out of alignment with me.

If there were any questions about that, the choice of Palin as a running mate answered them. Anti-science, anti-choice; someone who was promoting banning of books, choosing aides based on personal loyalty rather than qualifications, and conducting government business using private email to avoid having exposure subject to freedom-of-information laws that apply to government communications. I’m sick of crap like that.

“The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars,” Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy adviser to McCain, told the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation at a private gathering in Washington, D.C.

Oh, joy. Politicians reviewing research programs to decide which ones are worthwhile and which ones are a waste.

So, circle gets the square, by default. (Even though you aren’t supposed to win that way)

“Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

“Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.”

Objection to Obama is he keeps promising things that are outside the Constitutional authority of the executive. This seems to indicate he is asking us to hire him for a job with no idea what the job is.

Argument FOR McCain is that he is highly unlikely to serve more than one term–so we will get another roll of the dice sooner with him. (Assuming the electorate follows the usual course of reelecting the incumbent for a second term, regardless of his competence.)

Cyborg,
Your argument for McCain boils down to “well, it won’t be that bad: he’s probably going to die soon.” And with that V-P pick— who does even more of what you say Obama does— that doesn’t make me feel any better. At all.

Objection to Obama is he keeps promising things that are outside the Constitutional authority of the executive.

The problem is that candidates pandering to the religious right and the voters who reside there want to do the same thing — they’re asking to set aside the establishment clause when they e.g. express a desire to teach creationism. So I don’t see that as a distinguishing characteristic.